The government found itself facing heavy criticism this week over how it handles Australians’ personal information, after a Guardian investigation revealed a darknet trader was illegally selling the details of any Medicare card holder on request by “exploiting a vulnerability” in a government system.

The data had been for sale since at least October 2016, and the seller appears to have sold the Medicare details of at least 75 Australians…..

“What’s happening is the community is wrapping these attacks together and seeing them as a threat, and it adds to a perception that their data is not safe,” said Australia’s privacy commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim. “All the players need to work out a way to build up that trust.”

But why do these breaches keep happening? And is the government doing everything it can to stop them, and reassure the public when they do happen?

The most critical risk to Australians from the misuse of Medicare card data is one of identity fraud. A fake Medicare card with legitimate details can get a criminal a quarter of the way to an entire fake ID. This could then be used by organised crime groups in any number of ways, for example by leasing property or equipment. It could also be used to fraudulently obtain services from Medicare itself.

In this case, the darknet was the vehicle for this particular identity fraud scam. But it didn’t need to be, and it is likely similar, less-sophisticated scams are taking place right now.

Tudge has used an unusual line to explain the breach. He has said it was not a hack or cyber attack, but “traditional criminal activity”. What he’s edging around is that his department believe this was a case of an individual using a legitimate method to access Medicare data – but for an unauthorised and illegal purpose.

But contrary to Tudge’s assertion, access control is very much a matter of cybersecurity. And there are a lot of problems with the way Medicare card details can be obtained.

For instance more than 200,000 individual users can potentially look up Medicare card details through the department’s system. The department has declined to answer whether each access is logged, which could allow it to trace when a particular card was looked up. If those controls aren’t there, it’s unlikely the darkweb vendor selling this data will be found.

It doesn’t mean someone sitting in a doctor’s clinic has been supplying the data. A prospective patient could show up at a GP’s reception, pretending to be someone else, and just ask for that person’s Medicare card details. Guardian Australia has spoken with one employee at a medical practice who said people regularly asked for their card details to be supplied.

Identity fraud using Medicare cards is coming to be seen as a big problem in the government. The human services department acknowledged in February 2016 that there had been 1,500 “probable” cases of Medicare fraud, a jump from 269. The Australian reported that in 2014 the justice minister, Michael Keenan, set out to quantify the scale of Medicare card fraud taking place. A study found Medicare cards and driving licences were the mostly commonly used forms of ID for fraudsters.

The problem appears to be growing worse as those given credentials to access Medicare card details legitimately has increased – jumping 25% in the last financial year – and as organised crime groups grow more sophisticated in their methods.

FACEBOOK has come under fire over revelations it is targeting potentially vulnerable youths who “need a confidence boost” to facilitate predatory advertising practices.

The allegation was revealed this morning by The Australian which obtained internal documents from the social media giant which reportedly show how Facebook can exploit the moods and insecurities of teenagers using the platform for the potential benefit of advertisers.

The confidential document dated this year detailed how by monitoring posts, comments and interactions on the site, Facebook can figure out when people as young as 14 feel “defeated”, “overwhelmed”, “stressed”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “silly”, “useless”, and a “failure”.

Such information gathered through a system dubbed sentiment analysis could be used by advertisers to target young Facebook users when they are potentially more vulnerable.

But Facebook is not one to rest on its laurels. The leaked document shows it has been honing the covert tools its uses to gain useful psychological insights on young Australian and New Zealanders in high school and tertiary education.

The social media services we use can derive immense insight and personal information about us and our moods from the way we use them, and arguably none is more fastidious in that regard than Facebook which harvests immense data on its users.

The secret document was put together by two Australian Facebook execs and includes information about when young people are likely to feel excited, reflective, as well as other emotions related to overcoming fears.

For two years I was charged with turning Facebook data into money, by any legal means. If you browse the internet or buy items in physical stores, and then see ads related to those purchases on Facebook, blame me. I helped create the first versions of that, way back in 2012.

The ethics of Facebook’s micro-targeted advertising was thrust into the spotlight this week by a report out of Australia. The article, based on a leaked presentation, said that Facebook was able to identify teenagers at their most vulnerable, including when they feel “insecure”, “worthless”, “defeated” and “stressed”.

Facebook claimed the report was misleading, assuring the public that the company does not “offer tools to target people based on their emotional state”. If the intention of Facebook’s public relations spin is to give the impression that such targeting is not even possible on their platform, I’m here to tell you I believe they’re lying through their teeth.

Just as Mark Zuckerberg was being disingenuous (to put it mildly) when, in the wake of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory, he expressed doubt that Facebook could have flipped the presidential election.

Facebook deploys a political advertising sales team, specialized by political party, and charged with convincing deep-pocketed politicians that they do have the kind of influence needed to alter the outcome of elections.

I was at Facebook in 2012, during the previous presidential race. The fact that Facebook could easily throw the election by selectively showing a Get Out the Vote reminder in certain counties of a swing state, for example, was a running joke.

FACEBOOK siphons an enormous amount of data from its users – whether it's monitoring your mouse movements, tracking the amount of time you spend on any given post, or the subject of your photographs……

The US social network is constantly tracking information about its users – however, most users will not be aware of just how much data it can siphon from a single photograph.

Facebook hints at how much data it is able to detect when it suggests people who might be in the photograph, prompting you to tag their faces.

But in reality, the California-based social network is tracking much more than just faces.

When you upload a photo on Facebook, the social network scans the image and detects how many people are in the photograph, and whether it was taken indoors or outside.

Facebook is also able to identify humans, animals and inanimate objects.

It is not always accurate, but the social network is able to differentiate between people who are standing, or sitting down.

To find out exactly what Facebook is reading into your photos, software developer Adam Geitgey has created a useful Chrome browser extension that reveals the data Facebook is collecting from your images.

Show Facebook Computer Vision Tags reveals data that Facebook usually keeps hidden from its users.

Facebook will now display ads to web users who are not members of its social network, the company announced Thursday, in a bid to significantly expand its online ad network. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Facebook will use cookies, "like" buttons, and other plug-ins embedded on third-party sites to track members and non-members alike. The company says it will be able to better target non-Facebook users and serve relevant ads to them…

Some of the data Facebook collects to facilitate ad placements, according to The Washington Post on 19 August 2016:

1. Location2. Age3. Generation4. Gender5. Language6. Education level7. Field of study8. School9. Ethnic affinity10. Income and net worth11. Home ownership and type12. Home value13. Property size14. Square footage of home15. Year home was built16. Household composition

As explained on that shiny new portal, Facebook keeps ads “useful and relevant” in four distinct ways. It tracks your on-site activity, such as the pages you like and the ads you click, and your device and location settings, such as the brand of phone you use and your type of Internet connection. Most users recognize these things impact ad targeting: Facebook has repeatedly said as much. But slightly more surprising is the extent of Facebook’s web-tracking efforts and its collaborations with major data brokers.

While you’re logged onto Facebook, for instance, the network can see virtually every other website you visit. Even when you’re logged off, Facebook knows much of your browsing: It’s alerted every time you load a page with a “Like” or “share” button, or an advertisement sourced from its Atlas network. Facebook also provides publishers with a piece of code, called Facebook Pixel, that they (and by extension, Facebook) can use to log their Facebook-using visitors.

While you’re logged onto Facebook, for instance, the network can see virtually every other website you visit. Even when you’re logged off, Facebook knows much of your browsing: It’s alerted every time you load a page with a “Like” or “share” button, or an advertisement sourced from its Atlas network. Facebook also provides publishers with a piece of code, called Facebook Pixel, that they (and by extension, Facebook) can use to log their Facebook-using visitors.

17. Users who have an anniversary within 30 days18. Users who are away from family or hometown19. Users who are friends with someone who has an anniversary, is newly married or engaged, recently moved, or has an upcoming birthday20. Users in long-distance relationships21. Users in new relationships22. Users who have new jobs23. Users who are newly engaged24. Users who are newly married25. Users who have recently moved26. Users who have birthdays soon27. Parents28. Expectant parents29. Mothers, divided by “type” (soccer, trendy, etc.)30. Users who are likely to engage in politics31. Conservatives and liberals32. Relationship status

On top of that, Facebook offers marketers the option to target ads according to data compiled by firms like Experian, Acxiom and Epsilon, which have historically fueled mailing lists and other sorts of offline efforts. These firms build their profiles over a period of years, gathering data from government and public records, consumer contests, warranties and surveys, and private commercial sources — like loyalty card purchase histories or magazine subscription lists. Whatever they gather from those searches can also be fed into a model to draw further conclusions, like whether you’re likely to be an investor or buy organic for your kids.

In 2010, while researching his thesis, he asked Facebook if it could send him all of the user data the company had relating to his own account. Amazingly, he got a response.

Facebook was, in Schrems' words, "dumb enough" to send him all his data in a 1,200-page PDF. It showed that Facebook kept records of every person who had ever poked him, all the IP addresses of machines he had used to access the site (as well as which other Facebook users had logged in on that machine), a full history of messages and chats and even his "last location", which appeared to use a combination of check-ins, data gathered from apps, IP addresses and geo-tagged uploads to work out where he was.

As Schrems went through the document, he found items he thought he had deleted, such as messages, status updates and wall posts. He also found personal information he says he never supplied, including email addresses that had been culled from his friends' address books. European law is worded vaguely, but says that personal data must be processed "fairly"; people should be given comprehensive information on how it will be used; the data processed should not be "excessive" in relation to the purpose for which it was collected; it should be held securely and deleted when no longer needed. And each person should have the right to access all of their personal data.

Thursday, 13 April 2017

An automated Dept. of Human Services-Centrelinkdebt recovery system that launched an est. 230,000 investigations into client welfare paymentsin 2016-17, then used an error-prone “income averaging” method to decide that more than 133,000 clients had incurred a debt owed to Centrelink and sent them a bill which included a recovery fee.

That Victorian Legal Aid saw it necessary to update its advice to clients to warn them that their personal information is no longer safe with the Department is an extraordinary situation. This is not advice from tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. This is sober advice from legal professionals that a major part of the Australian Government cannot be trusted. I cannot stress enough how bad this is.

This behaviour from the Department has had a chilling effect, as I believe it was intended to. This chilling effect is not theoretical. I have personally spoken to individuals who have been reluctant to speak out against the Department, either to the media or to this Inquiry, because they fear repercussions from the Department as they are dependant in some way on income support.

At one point I discussed these matters with the office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge, and was alarmed to discover that his office did not share my view that the Department has an asymmetric power advantage over individuals. They were of the view that if an individual is critical of the Department in the media, they become fair game.

The attitude from Mr Tudge’s office appeared to be one of a siege mentality where they were at a substantial disadvantage despite the vast array of resources at their disposal, particularly when compared to an individual reliant on income support. They felt that there had been a lot of false information being reported in the media and that it was time for them to “start fighting back.” This adversarial attitude, coupled with the astounding levels of secrecy from the Department, indicates major cultural issues in the Department and in the responsible Minister’s office.

The Department of Human Services exists to serve the humans in our society. The clue is in the name of the department. If individuals within the Department are unhappy with their role, then they should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.

One of Australia's leading criminal barristers believes Human Services Minister Alan Tudge — or one of his staff — may have broken the law by supplying a journalist with a Centrelink client's personal information.

Robert Richter, a Queen's Counsel and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, believes the disclosure could lead to a prison sentence if it is tested beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court.

Mr Tudge has dismissed the legal advice, saying the disclosure was approved by his department's lawyers and was necessary to correct misleading public statements.

"I received clearance to release the information from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Department of Human Services, who is intimately across the details of the case and the relevant laws."

Mr Richter's advice was commissioned by Labor MP Linda Burney and his findings were based on public information, rather than inquiries with Mr Tudge's office.

In his opinion, it is "reasonably clear that either the Minister or one of his office's staff had committed an offence".

"We cannot presently put it higher without knowing precisely the content of the information that was disclosed and by whom it was disclosed," Mr Richter said……

Thursday, 30 March 2017

Hoping against hope I don’t have to eventually file this one under “How can you tell when Government is lying".However, I suspect that the

Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation is actually lying like the proverbial trooper, given the bare bones of the federated identity service and its attendent privacy & safety risks are on display at the Digital Transformation Agency.

Australia's federal government is sticking with its plans for a federated identity service, but disruption minister Angus Taylor has moved to quell fears of a revived “Australia Card”*.

What first emerged last year looking like a “single identity” for all citizens across all Australian governments – before being dumped – isn't coming back.

Speaking at the Teach Leaders conference in the Blue Mountains on Sunday, Taylor – full title Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation – said the Digital Transformation Agency's (DTA's) identity project is now about setting standards rather than creating a single whole-of-government identity provider.

He also said the government considers it a citizen's right to have multiple digital identities for their interactions with government, if that's what they want.

Considering that last year, the then-DTA was trying to recruit state governments to its “federated identity” alpha (only getting the NSW government's support), the new direction looks like a considerable departure from the project's original ambitions.

Taylor said: “We don't see ourselves as creating a centralised solution that we'll roll out and everybody else has to come and play – that's not the answer. But we do need to agree on standards, and we do need to agree on principles as to how this will work.”

He also emphasised that the system had to be user-driven rather than top-down, and that citizens' consent is crucial to the model.

“I must be user-driven. If I want to have 45 identities across the Internet and across my applications, it should be my choice. If I want to have one, that's my choice too.”

He added that the “user-driven approach” has to extend to the citizen having a “genuine consent” about how they interact with a digital identity.

“That, to me, is essential to any solution, and the federal government won't endorse or be part of any solution that doesn't do exactly that.”

A formal announcement about the future of the federated identity project is coming “in the very, very near future.”......

*Comment: For
readers unfamiliar with 1980s Australian politics – the “Australia Card” was
proposed as a single ID for citizens in 1985.

Offered as an efficiency
measure, it landed when “ID cards” in Nazi Germany and the Eastern Bloc were
still fresh in many citizens' minds, especially for those who had arrived in
Australia's first inrush of non-British immigration.

The uproar killed off the
Australia Card after a two-year political battle, but not the concept: public
service managers have never lost their love of tracking and identifying
citizens.

From that point of view,
Paul Shetler's DTO nearly achieved a huge social change by disguising it as
“technological disruption”.

Friday, 3 March 2017

Despite any current or future ministerial or departmental denials, ‘explanations’ or excuses, I find it hard to believe that this 22 February 2017 end of business day release of a Centrelink client’s personal, sensitive, protected information to a journalist was accidental.

The office of human services minister, Alan Tudge, mistakenly sent a journalist internal departmental briefings about a welfare recipient’s personal circumstances, which included additional detail on her relationship and tax history.

Fox had written an opinion piece critical of Centrelink and its handling of her debt, which ran in Fairfax Media in February. The government released her personal details to Fairfax journalist Paul Malone, who subsequently published a piece attacking Fox and questioning the veracity of her claims.

Two responses were given to the journalist, one from the department of human services and the other from Tudge.

The department said its response – three dot points containing only minimal detail on Fox’s personal history – was cleared by lawyers and was lawful. The minister’s office then added two quotes from Tudge and sent its own response to Malone.

Guardian Australia can now reveal that the minister’s office also accidentally sent the journalist two internal briefing documents, marked “for official use only”, which had been prepared by the department.

Those documents contained additional information on Fox and her personal circumstances, which went beyond the dot points prepared by the department. They included further detail of her relationship history, including when she separated from her partner.

Those documents were then sent to Malone. The documents were also mistakenly sent to Guardian Australia when it raised questions about the disclosure of Fox’s personal information.

No mention of those documents was made in Senate estimates on Thursday, despite repeated questioning of what the minister had disclosed to Malone. Tudge’s office has now conceded the documents were sent to Malone in error. But the office says it was of no consequence, because all of their contents had been legally cleared by the department.

A welfare recipient’s personal details are considered protected information under social security law, and any unlawful disclosure is considered a criminal offence. Earlier, the department told estimates that social security law only allowed it to disclose the minimal amount of information needed to correct the public record. [my highlighting]

On 2 March 2017 Labor MP for Barton and Shadow Minister for Human Services, Linda Burney, wrote to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner requesting an investigation into the personal/sensitive information release by the minister and/or his staff:

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

After more three years of an Abbott-Turnbull federal government there appears to be only a handful of ministerial portfolios which can be thought of as well managed and the Dept. of Human Services (operating Centrelink) is not amongst them......

The Turnbull government will this week release a request for tender for one of the most significant spends on the machinery of government in years: the job of integrating the massive welfare and Australian Tax Office IT systems, as part of a $1 billion overhaul of ageing infrastructure.

The upgrading of the government's IT systems might not normally attract much wide interest, except that the question of who would run another massive payments system – for Medicare – became such a matter of political controversy in the recent federal election campaign.

But the welfare upgrade also holds the key to clearing the way for other major welfare reforms – from implementing the McClure Report recommendations to simplify the welfare system through to data matching that will produce big administration and compliance costs for both the government and its customers.

6.7.1.45 Ten per cent
Recovery Fee on Debts from False or Non-declaration of Income from Personal
Exertion

Overview

A 10% recovery fee will
be imposed on a debt incurred when a person has:

refused or failed,
without reasonable excuse, to provide information, or

knowingly or recklessly
provided false information,

when required under a
provision of the social security law, to provide information in relation to the
person's income from personal exertion.

The 10% debt recovery
applies only to persons of working age on a social security benefit, DSP, WP, WidB or PPS at the time the debt occurred.

The fee is only
applicable to that part of the debt that arose because the person refused or
failed to provide information, or knowingly or recklessly provided false or
misleading information about their income from personal exertion.

The decision to impose a
10% recovery fee is separate from the decision to raise a debt, and must be
considered discretely. However, the decision to apply the recovery fee must be
made at the same time the debt is raised and cannot be applied retrospectively……

Income from personal
exertion includes any income received as an employee or for any services
rendered. This includes income from earnings, salaries, wages, commissions,
fees, bonuses, superannuation allowances, retiring allowances and retiring
gratuities, allowances and gratuities.

It also includes
proceeds of any business activity carried on by the person either alone or as a
partner with any other person or profit received from holding an office or from
any profit making undertaking or scheme.

The data-matching system Centrelink is using to detect overpayments has also been experiencing problems, according to some welfare recipients. The new system compares data held by Centrelink with data from other government agencies, including the tax office, to determine whether a person has wrongly claimed welfare.

Last week, independent Andrew Wilkie called on the government to suspend the automated compliance system while reports of errors were investigated. Other welfare recipients have since spoken to Guardian Australia about claims for debts they say have been incorrectly issued.

One man, who asked not to be named, was told he owed $2,200 because the ATO’s information did not match the income he had reported to Centrelink. He said he claimed benefits for only part of the year, and believed the ATO’s information on his annual income had been mistakenly used to suggest he worked the entire year.

“I believe no government department could be so incompetent to not recognise the glaring problems with matching data that is on completely different scales (yearly vs fortnightly),” he said. “To me this means it has been purposely done.”

The department said last week it believed the automated system was working without error. It said there had been no increase in the rate of appeals received.

A Centrelink compliance officer has broken ranks to describe the government’s crackdown on welfare debts as grossly unfair, saying its new automated compliance system is flawed and overly harsh on those on sickness benefits.

Once a discrepancy is detected – currently occurring at a rate of about 20,000 cases a week, compared with 20,000 a year previously – welfare recipients must prove they were entitled to the welfare benefit, or pay the debt.

The Centrelink compliance officer, who asked for anonymity, told Guardian Australia the system was error-prone but that most customers were paying debts without checking them first. The source said of the hundreds of cases they had reviewed, only about 20 (at a “generous estimate”) turned out to be genuine debts.

The worker said the system was particularly harsh on those who received Centrelink’s sickness allowance – a benefit for employees who are unable to work temporarily due to serious illness but are not paid by their employer.

“The ATO matched data will show that they worked the entire financial year and will apportion the gross payments over that financial year without taking into account their time off,” the source said. “This means the system raises a debt for the entire sickness allowance they received. For many, that’s a debt of over $1,000.

“Although we may have documented evidence of their medical issues on the system, we as [compliance officers] are not allowed to look in the system to find any of that evidence. Instead customers must obtain all their pay information for that financial year.”

The Centrelink source said their team was instructed to tell those people to contact the consumer affairs watchdog in their state or territory, which could then help them track down the necessary information. Colleagues had recently learned that those state and territory agencies did not hold such information.

“[We] were told to keep telling customers this false information until another way is found,” the source said.

The Department of Human Services said in a brief statement that it remained “confident in the online compliance system and associated checking process with customers”.

The department said more than 70% of those who had received a compliance letter since September had resolved the matter online and only 2.2% were requested to supply supporting documentation such as payslips.

But the compliance officer said that was untrue. They said they were “stunned” when the department stated the online system was working.

“This is completely false,” the source said. “Not only do customers, especially past customers, have access issues all the time but, since the compliance system was placed online, [compliance officers] have had many access issues.

“For the past two weeks we’ve had to turn customers away because we could not access [the system] and neither could they.”

Guardian Australia and other media, including the ABC and Crikey, continue to receive reports of incorrectly issued debts, which are causing stress and anxiety just before Christmas.

The government’s automated compliance system, which began in July, has been the subject of repeated complaints, which stem from its comparison of income reported to Centrelink and information held by the Australian Taxation Office.

It has been accompanied by threats of jail for those who do not pay, a joint police-Centrelink campaign targeting geographic areas, the imposition of a 10% debt recovery fee and plans to charge interest on welfare debts and remove the six-year statutory limit on retrieving overpayments.

Legal Aid Victoria, the Australian privacy foundation, the Australian council for social service, and independent Andrew Wilkie have all raised serious concerns, urging the human services minister, Alan Tudge, to intervene.

IT and data expert Justin Warren – who has worked for IBM, ANZ, Australia Post and Telstra, among others – said Centrelink’s system appeared to rest on the “idiotic” assumption that “big data was magic”.

“It’s not. It’s a messy, complex, statistical system that is wrong a lot,” Warren said. “All models are wrong, but some are useful. It’s the choice of how you deal with when the system is wrong that reveals how you view the world.”

Now, a handful of the thousands of Australians caught up in the government’s crackdown share their experience of being unfairly targeted.

Sally, Brisbane

I am the single mum of five and three year olds. I work part time and receive partial parenting payment and family tax benefits. This finances our simple lifestyle. I was shocked and dismayed to receive a letter from Centrelink Compliance department with a debt of $24,215.81 (including $2,110 debt recovery fee) to be paid by 9 January. I was able to talk with Centrelink Compliance and it appears the automated system “duplicated” my employer, so it appears I had a second undeclared job. Although this is Centrelink’s error, I need to provide two years of payslips and apply for a “manual reassessment” of my case. To stave off debt collectors, I had to start repaying my “debt” at a reduced rate.

Ryan, Melbourne

As a long-term full-time employed professional, tax payer and small business entrepreneur, I contribute to our economy in many positive and financial ways.

Centrelink have incorrectly alleged they overpaid me the government benefit Youth Allowance which financially assisted me to successfully complete a professional tertiary qualification in 2010-2011. This qualification is now used daily in my profession. This issue has been raised six years in retrospect, which appears now due to an erroneous automated computer “data match”.

Centrelink have repeatedly refused to provide written evidence of how the overpayment occurred. In addition to this, they have falsified my fortnightly income statement since I reported it in the 2010-2011 financial year. They have also requested I supply documented financial records I am not obliged to keep under ATO law. Centrelink has been grossly wasteful of my time and that of tax-funded government employed staff. My time is valuable and productive, both within full-time employment and small business development.

Throughout this ordeal, I’ve been subjected to personal distress, confusion and dismay and at a time of family grieving, my 66-year-old father passing away concurrently with receiving presumptive Centrelink letters of debt. The current data match regime appears to have a clear objective and obvious demographic: disrupt the disadvantaged, defenceless and vulnerable.

I now feel nothing more than inspired to stand up, fight for change and the protection of our basic civil liberties. We may feel small as individuals, but collectively we can stand tall and safeguard those around us, who deserve respect, dignity, equality and compassion in our free and democratic society.

James, Wollongong

A debt collector rang me on a Saturday morning and it ruined my weekend. I thought I was being scammed: they were asking for my personal details and demanding I identify myself. I had to wait until Monday to get an answer out of Centrelink, which was: I owed them $1,000 because their automated tax matching said so.

They wanted letters and payslips from employers proving I wasn’t a liar. When I did get the information, there has been no way to provide the Department of Human Services with it even after four weeks of trying. I feel as though I’ll have no choice but to pay when leaving for an overseas trip – extorted for the money I “owe” at the customs desk or miss my flight.

Dave, Sydney

I reported correctly while on youth allowance but was sent a letter from Centrelink demanding payment of a $2,500 “debt” based on alleged under reporting. The demand caused me stress and anxiety. I spent at least five hours contacting Centrelink and gathering my payslips to prove that I did not under report and that I did not owe a debt.

After phone calls and emails to and from Centrelink and a journalist from the ABC, Centrelink acknowledged that I did not owe any debt. There was no apology for the false accusation or the stress caused. I am concerned that most people would simply pay the “debt” on the assumption that Centrelink had a valid basis to their demand.

Click on image to enlarge

I spoke to a number of #Centrelink sources this week. The government knows its robo-debt algorithm is laughably inaccurate. It doesn't care.

WHO IS MAKING MONEY FROM THESE FALSE DEBTS?Following a pilot in 1994, the Department of Social Security received funding in the 1995–96 Budget for a Flexible Debt Recovery measure, which would: 'refer certain social security debts owed by non‐current customers to mercantile agents for recovery action'. ECAs, acting as mercantile agents, have been contracted since 1996 to recover social security payment debts owing by non‐current customers. The ECAs are paid a commission on the amount recovered for each debt.

DHS currently contracts two private sector ECAs to undertake debt recovery for Centrelink payment debts: Dun & Bradstreet and Recoveries Corporation. The current arrangement is a standing offer for debt recovery services from both suppliers for the period February 2011–February 2014.

Two external debt collection agencies received over $13 million in commissions for recovering Centrelink debts last financial year. The debt recovery bonanza follows a previous Audit office investigation which found private debt collection agencies recovered 10 per cent of Centrelink debts, but were the subject of more than a quarter of all complaints about debt recovery practices…..

WHAT NOW?Now the
Minister for Human Services and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge would like to deliver
all Centrelink services online in the future via software programs –
including acceptance or denial of applications for pensions, benefits and
allowances – without any human contact between the person applying and Centrelink. Probably with user access only allowed via a registered national digital identity. What could possibly go wrong?

WANT
TO TELL THE MINISTER AND SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS
EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL?

* A hat tip to those mainstream journalists, social media activists, statisticians and IT people who have been covering this issue, a shout out to the whistleblowers and a big thank you to those Centrelink clients who have been telling their stories online.
UPDATE

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
[Adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948]

NSW North Coast

Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Moggy Musings

Hi! My name is Boy. I'm a male bi-coloured tabby cat. Ever since I discovered that Malcolm Turnbull's dogs were allowed to blog, I have been pestering Clarencegirl to allow me a small space on North Coast Voices.

An investigative musing: Newcastle Herald, 12 August 2017: The state’s corruption watchdog has been asked to investigate the finances of the Awabakal Aboriginal Local Land Council, less than 12 months after the troubled organisation was placed into administration by the state government. The Newcastle Herald understands accounting firm PKF Lawler made the decision to refer the land council to the Independent Commission Against Corruption after discovering a number of irregularities during an audit of its financial statements.The results of the audit were recently presented to a meeting of Awabakal members. Administrator Terry Lawler did not respond when contacted by the Herald and a PKF Lawler spokesperson said it was unable to comment on the matter. Given the intricate web of company relationships that existed with at least one former board member it is not outside the realms of possibility that, if ICAC accepts this referral, then United Land Councils Limited (registered New Zealand) and United First Peoples Syndications Pty Ltd(registered Australia) might be interviewed. North Coast Voicesreaders will remember that on 15 August 2015 representatives of these two companied gave evidence before NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 6 INQUIRY INTO CROWN LAND. This evidence included advocating for a Yamba mega port.

A Nationals musing: Word around the traps is that NSW Nats MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis has been talking up the notion of cruise ships visiting the Clarence River estuary. Fair dinkum! That man can be guaranteed to run with any bad idea put to him. I'm sure one or more cruise ships moored in the main navigation channel on a regular basis for one, two or three days is something other regular river users will really welcome. *pause for appreciation of irony* The draft of the smallest of the smaller criuse vessels is 3 metres and it would only stay safely afloat in that channel. Even the Yamba-Iluka ferry has been known to get momentarily stuck in silt/sand from time to time in Yamba Bay and even a very small cruise ship wouldn't be able to safely enter and exit Iluka Bay. You can bet your bottom dollar operators of cruise lines would soon be calling for dredging at the approach to the river mouth - and you know how well that goes down with the local residents.

A local councils musing: Which Northern Rivers council is on a low-key NSW Office of Local Government watch list courtesy of feet dragging by a past general manager?

A serial pest musing: I'm sure the Clarence Valley was thrilled to find that a well-known fantasist is active once again in the wee small hours of the morning treading a well-worn path of accusations involving police, local business owners and others.

An investigative musing: Which NSW North Coast council is batting to have the longest running code of conduct complaint investigation on record?

A which bank? musing: Despite a net profit last year of $9,227 million the Commonwealth Bank still insists on paying below Centrelink deeming rates interest on money held in Pensioner Security Accounts. One local wag says he’s waiting for the first bill from the bank charging him for the privilege of keeping his pension dollars at that bank.

A Daily Examiner musing: Just when you thought this newspaper could sink no lower under News Corp management, it continues to give column space to Andrew Bolt.

A thought to ponder musing: In case of bushfire or flood - do you have an emergency evacuation plan for the family pet?

An adoption musing: Every week on the NSW North Coast a number of cats and dogs find themselves without a home. If you want to do your bit and give one bundle of joy a new family, contact Happy Paws on 0419 404 766 or your local council pound.